First of all, I didn't ignore it. If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.

I will answer it for you though.

No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC. That has no relevance to anything within this thread. They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere. It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.

So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins. Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier. He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.

YES STEVE

They are two separate issues.

I was told many times by just about all on this board to go read what a NTC means. There are even some, who sadly, even went to tortured lengths to show it to me in writing from some website.

All I've ever have been screaming about is that for all those who state that he was traded to Pitt due to a NTC is not an accurate statement.

I completely understand how Iginla and Crosby blew up the boston deal by forcing Calgary's hand in employing his NTC.

Feaster and Calgary were under no obligation to trade Iginla to Pitt due to a NTC !

And amazingly enough almost a year later and they still don't get it

If anyone wants to discuss why I feel IMO Chiarelli deserves some of the blame, I'm fine with that.

But they are two separate conversations.

How anyone with an IQ above room temp could disagree with that is beyond comprehension

I certainly have not given this much attention but that's sounds preposterous to me. It's like feaster forgot ior ignored ig had

a nmc. This doesn't sound right

Thx for clarification though 50blz

A couple of weeks before the trade deadline, Iginla told Feaster he would wave his NMC if he could play for the Bruins, Penguins, Kings or Blackhawks. Fast forward a couple weeks, the Kings and Blackhawks don't make a play for Iginla. The Bruins went through a tough stretch to finish March winning only 2 games out of 7. The Penguins are the opposite having won 15 games in a row. Feaster says to Iginla that he's headed to Boston. Iginla replies "What about the Pens. Did they lose interest?" Feaster tells him they made an offer, but it wasn't as good as the Bruins offer. Iginla then tells Feaster that he will only wave his NMC to go to the Penguins.

First of all, I didn't ignore it. If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.

I will answer it for you though.

No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC. That has no relevance to anything within this thread. They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere. It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.

So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins. Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier. He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.

YES STEVE

They are two separate issues.

I was told many times by just about all on this board to go read what a NTC means. There are even some, who sadly, even went to tortured lengths to show it to me in writing from some website.

All I've ever have been screaming about is that for all those who state that he was traded to Pitt due to a NTC is not an accurate statement.

I completely understand how Iginla and Crosby blew up the boston deal by forcing Calgary's hand in employing his NTC.

Feaster and Calgary were under no obligation to trade Iginla to Pitt due to a NTC !

And amazingly enough almost a year later and they still don't get it

If anyone wants to discuss why I feel IMO Chiarelli deserves some of the blame, I'm fine with that.

But they are two separate conversations.

How anyone with an IQ above room temp could disagree with that is beyond comprehension

anyway, i'd be interested in hearing your opinions on any blame you feel should have gone PC's way.

Hey Steve

Thanks for keeping an open mind, and actually listening to what I've been trying to say for way too long. I know this has topic has become tired and somewhat ugly, but there's a foot of snow outside, so...

Anyway. I'll give a disclaimer before I addrress Chiarelli. This an an opinion, I have nothing factually to back it up, just as those who disgree. Also, it may be long winded, but can't help that either.

I immediately thought when I heard what went down that the offer of Koko and Bartkowski for a player of Iginla's stature was a joke. I can understand how overzealous B's fans were taking the spin of "it was the better offer" - but for me it just suked slightly less then the Pitt offer. I'm saying that PC went about his business the way a GM would by trying to get the most for the least. This was never a typical deal at the deadline, and should not have been handled as such.

Feaster and Iginla had an easy out from a PR standpoint. Now put Peverly in the deal, and Feaster has to stand up and say to the world that he turned that one down. Not as easy as turning the the blockbuster package of Koko ans Bart. I believe that PC should have gone big or gone home. Also believe that PC should have been aware that Pitt was lurking and just waiting to get in under the wire with a similar offer. Maybe Peverly puts Pitt in a position where that's something that they just can't or were unwilling to match. Obviously we'll never know, but the Boston offer could have and should have been stronger. Then you could say as a GM that we did all we could do, and we lost out due to circumstances beyond our control. He went in weak which opened up possibilities that were already stacked against him...not good.

Then there's the "we had a deal" thing. Nothing ever went to the NHL office. Hours ticked by, and he sat and waited by the phone. Never called back and looked for a reason why. Maybe Feaster tells him the Iginla is leaning towards Pitt, and that Pitt is now putting offers on the table, and it looks like that's where it's heading. Ok...then maybe PC could have jacked up the stakes for all involved, and thrown down a more substantial offer. But, he was just sitting there the whole time- and to make it worse, the writing was on the wall- still just sat there waiting for the phone to ring. How'd that work out?

I'd say that Iginla and Crosby deserve most of the blame for the way this shook out. Feaster deserves a big chunk also, cause he didn't hold Iginla's feet to the fire, and tell him it's Boston or Calgary. Maybe a stronger Boston offer would have made Calgary take that position. PC deserves at least some blame IMO, because he never put his best deal on the table, which was the first domino that fell, and when it was time to react - he was staring at a phone that was never going to ring.

I'd say that's not a good job.

I don't think that's any more unbelievable than the "he could of offered anybody on the B's roster, and it wouldn't have mattered" crowd.

First of all, I didn't ignore it. If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.

I will answer it for you though.

No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC. That has no relevance to anything within this thread. They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere. It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.

So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins. Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier. He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.

YES STEVE

They are two separate issues.

I was told many times by just about all on this board to go read what a NTC means. There are even some, who sadly, even went to tortured lengths to show it to me in writing from some website.

All I've ever have been screaming about is that for all those who state that he was traded to Pitt due to a NTC is not an accurate statement.

I completely understand how Iginla and Crosby blew up the boston deal by forcing Calgary's hand in employing his NTC.

Feaster and Calgary were under no obligation to trade Iginla to Pitt due to a NTC !

And amazingly enough almost a year later and they still don't get it

If anyone wants to discuss why I feel IMO Chiarelli deserves some of the blame, I'm fine with that.

But they are two separate conversations.

How anyone with an IQ above room temp could disagree with that is beyond comprehension

anyway, i'd be interested in hearing your opinions on any blame you feel should have gone PC's way.

Hey Steve

Thanks for keeping an open mind, and actually listening to what I've been trying to say for way too long. I know this has topic has become tired and somewhat ugly, but there's a foot of snow outside, so...

Anyway. I'll give a disclaimer before I addrress Chiarelli. This an an opinion, I have nothing factually to back it up, just as those who disgree. Also, it may be long winded, but can't help that either.

I immediately thought when I heard what went down that the offer of Koko and Bartkowski for a player of Iginla's stature was a joke. I can understand how overzealous B's fans were taking the spin of "it was the better offer" - but for me it just suked slightly less then the Pitt offer. I'm saying that PC went about his business the way a GM would by trying to get the most for the least. This was never a typical deal at the deadline, and should not have been handled as such.

Feaster and Iginla had an easy out from a PR standpoint. Now put Peverly in the deal, and Feaster has to stand up and say to the world that he turned that one down. Not as easy as turning the the blockbuster package of Koko ans Bart. I believe that PC should have gone big or gone home. Also believe that PC should have been aware that Pitt was lurking and just waiting to get in under the wire with a similar offer. Maybe Peverly puts Pitt in a position where that's something that they just can't or were unwilling to match. Obviously we'll never know, but the Boston offer could have and should have been stronger. Then you could say as a GM that we did all we could do, and we lost out due to circumstances beyond our control. He went in weak which opened up possibilities that were already stacked against him...not good.

Then there's the "we had a deal" thing. Nothing ever went to the NHL office. Hours ticked by, and he sat and waited by the phone. Never called back and looked for a reason why. Maybe Feaster tells him the Iginla is leaning towards Pitt, and that Pitt is now putting offers on the table, and it looks like that's where it's heading. Ok...then maybe PC could have jacked up the stakes for all involved, and thrown down a more substantial offer. But, he was just sitting there the whole time- and to make it worse, the writing was on the wall- still just sat there waiting for the phone to ring. How'd that work out?

I'd say that Iginla and Crosby deserve most of the blame for the way this shook out. Feaster deserves a big chunk also, cause he didn't hold Iginla's feet to the fire, and tell him it's Boston or Calgary. Maybe a stronger Boston offer would have made Calgary take that position. PC deserves at least some blame IMO, because he never put his best deal on the table, which was the first domino that fell, and when it was time to react - he was staring at a phone that was never going to ring.

I'd say that's not a good job.

I don't think that's any more unbelievable than the "he could of offered anybody on the B's roster, and it wouldn't have mattered" crowd.

Many of these threads go out of the park because people misconstrue the cliche, "everyone's entitled to an opinion". That really over simplifies the intent. It should be a few paragraphs, not one line. We also have responsibilities to have an open mind, and be willing to update our opinions.

Yes, your opinion is as believable as "the B's could have offered anybody, and it wouldn't have mattered", but they are both, extreme, fringe theories. I'm not being a know-it-all by pointing that out.

Your suggestion that a stronger Boston offer would have given Feaster more incentive to get tough with Iginla(take it, or you're staying here) seems really strong on the surface, but you have to admit, also hog-ties the Flames. They really want rid of him, and while digging their heels in, wins the battle....they lose the war. Iginla's gone in a few weeks anyway, and they get nothing.

There are tons of sources out there regarding "negotiation". I think you'd be hard pressed to find one single credible source who thought it was a wise, prudent decision to offer up more, after the other party informed you, the deal was made. We pretty much know that to be fact. Not because PC or the Bruins said it publicly, but because Feaster and the Flames didn't argue it. If there was any doubt, the flames and Feaster would have strongly denied a deal was ever in fact "made". Their agreement to the overall details made them look incredibly stupid, and a different spin wouldn't have.

Also, on the surface, Bart and Koko "does" seem stingy for a player of Iginlas stature. But it's not straight up. Iginla's a month away from UFA, he's just a rental. If he had 3 years of reasonable pay left on his contract, then he certainly would have warranted more, but not this way.

In virtually every situation in life, there is more onus on the seller optimizing return, than the buyer. Most of these possibilities you bring up, fall more on Feasters lap than PC's.

I get what you're saying. It's kinda unreasonable to say there was "absolutely nothing" he could have done. You agree, it's "mostly" the Flames fault, so it's just semantics, but here's where it gets interesting.

Having made the statement that it's mostly Calgary's fault, the majority of your rationale above further incriminates Feaster, more than it points to Chiarelli.

THE FOLLOWING PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP. Does anyone actually disagree with the spirit of this explanation?

[/QUOTE]

A couple of weeks before the trade deadline, Iginla told Feaster he would wave his NMC if he could play for the Bruins, Penguins, Kings or Blackhawks. Fast forward a couple weeks, the Kings and Blackhawks don't make a play for Iginla. The Bruins went through a tough stretch to finish March winning only 2 games out of 7. The Penguins are the opposite having won 15 games in a row. Feaster says to Iginla that he's headed to Boston. Iginla replies "What about the Pens. Did they lose interest?" Feaster tells him they made an offer, but it wasn't as good as the Bruins offer. Iginla then tells Feaster that he will only wave his NMC to go to the Penguins.

"They really want rid of him, and while digging their heels in, wins the battle....they lose the war. Iginla's gone in a few weeks anyway, and they get nothing."

Feaster lost the war and his job, and Calagary wound up with nothing anyway, could have saved face and stood up for the franchise ...if they were properly motivated

"Having made the statement that it's mostly Calgary's fault, the majority of your rationale above further incriminates Feaster, more than it points to Chiarelli."

Totally agree with this ^, but Chiarelli didn't exactly go in guns blazing, and his reaction was as lame as it gets, so he deserves some criticism as far as I'm concerned - he could have done a better job

In any case, appreciate an honest exchange with somebody. Opinions differ - and that's cool. Just a parting shot ...this is an example of a fair and unbiased debate. Too many times around here the "fans" get in some knee jerk freak out mode with the silghtest criticism of this club, from the management, to the coach, to the players...

actually, i'm changing my mind (but still, first answer my question you coward) Feaster was obligated to trade Iginla. If he didn't trade Iginla, it would have been out of spite, and would not have been the best thing for his team. As the general manager he has an obligation to make the best decisions for the team and therefore was obligated to trade iginla. Due to the FACT that Iginla employed his NMC to pick his destination, he was obligated to trade iginla to pittsburgh. coward.

Feeling obligated is one thing - Being obligated contractually by something stated in writing via a clause is something else. There is no such clause...try to grasp what the word no means in a - no trade clause

Your question is not valid- it's hypothetical at best, and desperate at worst.

These are separate discussions. Start another thread if you'd like to discuss the other side of this. Otherwise look up "no" on your computer...you do realize you're unable to comprehend the meaning of a two letter word - something a dolphin can figure out ..right junior ?

NAS stop posting to me. I have you on ignore and only see you post when you're quoted. literally ALL you do is try to belittle other posters. everything you say has an angle. and you make sarcastic passive aggressive comments that annoy me. If you disagree with a poster just say it, don't beat around the bush. but i will respond to you one last time.